add_record

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('add') implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or error behavior. The only behavioral detail is that time can be omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a clarifying note on the time parameter. It is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is insufficient. It omits return behavior, data constraints for content, and the overall scope of 'record'. An agent would lack enough context to use this tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the time parameter (format and optionality), but says nothing about caseId (required it is) or content (required, minLength). The description adds value for time only, leaving two parameters unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it adds a case record. It uses a specific verb and resource ('add record'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_alibi or add_person, which are more specific record types. The clarity is good but could be more distinguishing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a guideline for the time parameter format ('datetime-local string'), but lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_alibi for alibis). No context on prerequisites or typical use cases is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.